Bail Can Be Cancelled If Procured By Fraud Or Misrepresentation: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that bail granted to an accused person can be cancelled where it has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.

Justice Pranjal Das observed, “...a bail order can also be cancelled, if it was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. The aforesaid principle would be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances that have emerged in the instant case as narrated and discussed above. Clearly, the respondent No.2/accused misrepresented facts amounting to fraud regarding his resignation in securing the bail order. Therefore, on the touchstone of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the bail granted to the accused deserves to be cancelled in exercise of both the inherent powers of this Court as well as the powers of bail cancellation available to this Court concurrently with that of the Sessions Court,” the Court added.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner, Director of Himani Agency Private Limited running a Tanishq jewellery showroom, had lodged an FIR alleging that the respondent, who was working as Store Manager, had stolen jewellery worth Rs. 1,34,49,610/- and thereafter became untraceable.

The accused had obtained anticipatory bail on the plea that he had resigned from his job before the incident occurred. Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that this resignation was false and had been sent to an incorrect email ID, and that the accused had in fact continued to be associated with the showroom. Materials were placed to show his presence at the showroom's events and his attendance around the time of the incident.

The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that he had not violated any of the bail conditions and that there was no sufficient ground for cancellation of bail.

Upon perusal of the case diary, the High Court noted that the stolen jewellery had not been recovered, that the accused had not cooperated with the investigation, and that custodial interrogation was necessary. The Court also took note of the accused's own statement and bank records indicating that he had taken a gold loan on the jewellery, invested the money in the stock market, and lost it.

Dealing with the issue of misrepresentation, the Court, observed, “The materials annexed by the petitioner also belies the claim that he had resigned from the showroom before the incident. Rather, all the materials, including his statement, prima-facie indicate that the theory of resignation was a false one invented to escape the criminal liability.”

“To that extent, I find force in the contention of the petitioner's side that the accused misled the learned Court below and played fraud upon it vis-a-vis a story of resignation and in securing the order of anticipatory bail,” it further added.

Thus, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 306 BNSS was cancelled and set aside, and the criminal petition was allowed.

Case Title: Prasun Banik v. The State of Assam and Anr.

Case No.: Crl. Pet./1352/2024

Click here to read the judgment